In re Crittenden — 280 N.Y. 492

Majority

p. 492

In the Matter of Henry L. Crittenden, an Attorney at Law, Appellant Rochester Bar Association, Respondent.

Argued May 19, 1939;

decided June 2, 1939.

p. 493

Victor Levine and Eugene J. Dwyer for appellant.

The Appellate Division erred in basing its determination on information received outside the record. (Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Eisner, 276 N. Y. 121 ; Matter of Eldridge, 82 N. Y. 161 .)

Leland R. Yost for respondent.

This cause comes here upon a certificate from the Appellate Division that a question of law is involved. Appellant urges that if afforded an opportunity he could refute some of the conclusions drawn from a consideration of the agreement between Malley and himself which was not introduced in evidence in the proceeding and which appellant, therefore, did not have an opportunity to meet or to explain. This may also have a bearing upon the extent of the punishment to be inflicted.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; O’Brien and Rippey, JJ., taking no part.

Ordered accordingly.

p. 494

Cases cited

Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Eisner 276 N. Y. 121 N.Y. 1937-11-23 p. 493
In re Eldridge 82 N. Y. 161 N.Y. 1880-09-28 p. 493